The past few days have extracted a heavy toll from me. While it's nice to see your work finally taken seriously in the mainstream, the 12-14 hour workdays I've had to pull to handle everything is anything but...
@Gargron
Your hard work is very much appreciated. Maybe, though, upgrading the infrastructure behind mastodon.social is counter-productive. It just leads to the next wave of new arrivals assuming that this is "the" instance to register at, ad infinitum. Maybe limiting the account count on your instance would give you peace of mind, and ultimately distribute accounts more evenly among instances.
@katzenberger @Gargron shut it down, it’s already too big.
@katzenberger @Gargron I agree, horizontal scalability has often less limits than vertical. I haven't looked into Mastodon federation yet to understand advantages over disadvantages
@katzenberger @Gargron maybe? Mastodon must grow and response times be normal otherwise it is not usable.

@katzenberger @Gargron I can see Mastodon having a bunch of core (generalist) servers to support it - the ones new users turn to when joining, because that's the norm on non-federated social platforms.

Limiting account count is sensible, IMHO.

But given the above, I wonder what should be the best approach: a couple big servers extraordinarily scaled (#VerticalFederation)? Or a dozen medium sized "core generalist" servers (adding more if needed) (#HorizontalFederation)?

cc @aral

@pedrosanta

IMHO just highlighting there is a choice (4K instances) would be a good start, plus hints to server directories that allow for searching by one's preferred criteria (community, language, sustainability, etc.; such suites exist). The rest could be left to self-organization, people have been able to find their phone, internet, electricity etc. providers for a long time. Any global regulation would be rejected anyway...

@Gargron @aral